David Quinn wrote:
As soon as they divide the All into the universe and the rest of God, they are already tacitly admitting that "things" are all there are. For they have divided the ALL into two things.

The Islamic beg to differ. They would say a thing is a physical object, and that God is not a thing, or things, that is, not a physical entity or something perceptible by the senses.
It boils down to definition. But can we know whether the total sum of physical objects were created by a conscious being?

The most basic definition of the Islamic God is the one who created the universe - as is, the total sum of physical objects. God has no beginning or end, while this universe had a beginning, say the theologians. Some of them also assert that there are many universes in different dimensions.

The Islamic beg to differ. They would say a thing is a physical object, and that God is not a thing, or things, that is, not a physical entity or something perceptible by the senses.
It boils down to definition. But can we know whether the total sum of physical objects were created by a conscious being?

The most basic definition of the Islamic God is the one who created the universe - as is, the total sum of physical objects. God has no beginning or end, while this universe had a beginning, say the theologians. Some of them also assert that there are many universes in different dimensions.

David Quinn wrote:
Doesn't the truth of cause and effect cut through all that?

-

But as I said before, the Islamic God is defined to be the cause of everything, and the universe is a recreation in every instant, because God destroyed and recreated it in every instant. Which means continuous motion of objects is not real; only objects disappearing and then reappearing at different positions in space.

David Quinn wrote:
Doesn't the truth of cause and effect cut through all that?

But as I said before, the Islamic God is defined to be the cause of everything, and the universe is a recreation in every instant, because God destroyed and recreated it in every instant. Which means continuous motion is not real; only objects disappearing and then reappearing at different positions in space.

The destruction and recreation of everything in each moment by God is itself a continuous motion? Or is that a stop-start process too?

It looks like we're slowly sliding into the all-too-Christian realm of infinite regression......

David Quinn wrote:
The destruction and recreation of everything in each moment by God is itself a continuous motion?
-

I don't know. I don't speak for God. Though, I was referring to the motion of objects, not of God. I myself do wonder if God thinks and acts in term of time, if time itself was created by God. Can we know what and how such a being thinks? And whether it is a continuous motion or not, can we prove with absolute certainty that such a god-a being that destroys and recreates all physical objects in every instant- is just imaginary?

It looks like we're slowly sliding into the all-too-Christian realm of infinite regression......

David Quinn wrote:It looks like we're slowly sliding into the all-too-Christian realm of infinite regression......

Unfortunately I can't really refute infinite regression.

The thing about an infinite regression is that the original question is never answered. For example, when the answer "God" is put forward to explain the existence of the Universe, it immediately begs the question: "Where did this God come from?" And so an infinite regression is created in which the essential matter is passed on down the line indefinitely. An Infinite Postponement.

All infinite regressions come from faulty concepts to begin with.

Liberty Sea wrote:

David Quinn wrote:
The destruction and recreation of everything in each moment by God is itself a continuous motion?

I don't know. I don't speak or god. I myself do wonder if God thinks and acts in term of time, if time itself was created by God. Can we know what and how such a being thinks? And whether it is a continuous motion or not, can we prove with absolute certainty that such a god-a being that destroys and recreates all physical objects in every instant- is just imaginary?

So are you conceiving here of a God which consciously plays with everything?

David Quinn wrote:
The thing about an infinite regression is that the original question is never answered. For example, when the answer "God" is put forward to explain the existence of the Universe, it immediately begs the question: "Where did this God come from?" And so an infinite regression is created in which the essential matter is passed on down the line indefinitely. An Infinite Postponement.

All infinite regressions come from faulty concepts to begin with.

Yes, that one is faulty. I thought you were speaking of something different, something about the certainty of a proposition, the validity of the proof of proof of proof and such.
Anyway, the Islamic God is defined to have no beginning and end. While 'time'-as the passage in which physical objects change their position in space- has a starting point, which is when physical objects were created by this 'Being'.

So are you conceiving here of a God which consciously plays with everything?

That is the theory. Let limit 'everything' to 'the total sum of physical objects'. Not my theory, per se, and I will study more about that theory.

David Quinn wrote:
The thing about an infinite regression is that the original question is never answered. For example, when the answer "God" is put forward to explain the existence of the Universe, it immediately begs the question: "Where did this God come from?" And so an infinite regression is created in which the essential matter is passed on down the line indefinitely. An Infinite Postponement.

All infinite regressions come from faulty concepts to begin with.

Yes, that one is faulty. I thought you were speaking of something different, something about the certainty of a proposition, the validity of the proof of proof of proof and such.

The same thing applies there too. All infinite regressions, of whatever kind, come from faulty concepts. That applies to technical fields as well.

Liberty Sea wrote:

So are you conceiving here of a God which consciously plays with everything?

That is the theory. Let limit 'everything' to 'the total sum of physical objects'. Not my theory, per se, and I will study more about that theory.

A tangible entity. A bundle of tangible entities. Or anything tangible.

Is something that can only be percieved with the mind really tangible ?
The sense organs give what seems tangible life....otherwise it is non-existent.
No brain/sensations....no awareness of anything.
It's all in your head/mind/brain.

Come on. Why don't you propose your own definition? As a non-native English speaker, I understood 'tangible' as 'perceivable' by the senses or possessing mass. Tangibility, therefore, must be linked with mass. Even photons or quarks are perceivable. Photon have no stable masses, but their speed are limited, which mean they restricted by certain forces. God's speed, as theorized, must be beyond any limit, and not restricted by anything.

Come on. Why don't you propose your own definition? As a non-native English speaker, I understood 'tangible' as 'perceivable' by the senses or possessing mass. Tangibility, therefore, must be linked with mass. Even photons or quarks are perceivable. Photon have no stable masses, but their speed are limited, which mean they restricted by certain forces. God's speed, as theorized, must be beyond any limit, and not restricted by anything.

We cannot have a billion of thoughts per second even if we want to. Our consciousness are limited because our physical conditions are limited, dependent on 'mass'. Even if you are a solipsist you also has to recognize the limitation of your mind.

What about thoughts and emotions? Do they have mass?

See above. They are material processes, dependent on matters, which possess mass. Physical/material processes are processes, not matter, but restricted by matter and does not exist outside matter.
As for whether there is something beyond material process in man, I don't know.

Liberty Sea wrote:The most basic definition of the Islamic God is the one who created the universe - as is, the total sum of physical objects.

The sum total of physical objects is "created" by the sum total of non-physical objects. But the sum total of non-physical objects is not the All. Nor did it precede the sum total of physical objects in time.

God has no beginning or end, while this universe had a beginning, say the theologians.

Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite.

jupiviv wrote:
Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite.

It's not me who is defining that. I am representing a theory of the Islamics, who claim their theory to be Truth, just as you claim your theory to be truth. I am just trying to find out the truth, not defending any theory.
How about this: The physical objects are God's creations, and therefore part of God, but God is more than the physical, and can be independent of the physical if he decides to.
But even if we neglect that possibility and say God is not the All, can we know for sure whether the universe as the total sum of physical objects are not created by a conscious being?

Anyone can think or theorize about Allah, so such thoughts are probably just material processes. But I suspect you are referring to mystical experiences such as when one communicates directly with Allah. For that, I don't know. I don't claim to have any mystical experience, and even if I had one I may doubt whether it is just hallucination. But there is a possibility that such experience may endow my mind with perfect clarity that will bring about a radical change in my thought and leave no shadow of doubt in me. We have to take all possibilities into consideration.

jupiviv wrote:
Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite.

It's not me who is defining that. I am representing a theory of the Islamics, who claim their theory to be Truth, just as you claim your theory to be truth. I am just trying to find out the truth, not defending any theory.
How about this: The physical objects are God's creations, and therefore part of God, but God is more than the physical, and can be independent of the physical if he decides to.
But even if we neglect that possibility and say God is not the All, can we know for sure whether the universe as the total sum of physical objects are not created by a conscious being?

Here you are stuck on the idea that the word God that refers to a finite entity or thing that possesses properties/characteristics, which are, at root, descriptions of finite-ness. To further refer to such a God as Infinite (i.e. part of the All while being the all) is a complete contradiction simply due to that fact that the Infinite (the All), cannot possess finite properties/characteristics.

This has nothing to do with theories or beliefs. It is a simple matter of logic.

The Islam religion, and all other religions, over the centuries have deeply embedded in the brains of the youth an automatic association to finite characteristics when the subject of God is brought up.

bluerap wrote:Here you are stuck on the idea that the word God that refers to a finite entity or thing that possesses properties/characteristics, which are, at root, descriptions of finite-ness. To further refer to such a God as Infinite (i.e. part of the All while being the all) is a complete contradiction simply due to that fact that the Infinite (the All), cannot possess finite properties/characteristics.

This has nothing to do with theories or beliefs. It is a simple matter of logic.

The Islam religion, and all other religions, over the centuries have deeply embedded in the brains of the youth an automatic association to finite characteristics when the subject of God is brought up.

Though I don't belong to any religion nor do I associate myself with any belief, I recognize that there are sophisticated, open-minded Muslims as well as shallow, close-minded ones. Don't be quick to judge.
And you are just repeating the QRS's argument that has been repeated to death by followers like Kelly Jones.
In what sense is the God as defined the Islamics infinite? He has no beginning and end. He is the unmoved mover, as the whole of existence is like a drop of water that cannot move the infinite ocean that is God. He can remove all of existence by his whim. He can remain in his wujub without the need of being in relation with any other beings to verify his wujud.

To say that such a god is finite would be a logical fallacy in your part. The universe is nothing compared to him, in the way he is defined. The universe is his creation and a tiny, insignificant part of him. And it is said in the scripture that if he is to enter his creation, the universe will instantly vanish because finity amounts to nothing next to infinity, as x/∞ = 0. In what sense is he finite?

jupiviv wrote:Then you are defining the universe to mean something finite. God cannot be the All and yet be able to create something finite.

This makes no sense. Logically, if God were Infinite and Eternal, what would prevent him from "being able" to create anything, let alone something finite? I prefer to stick with the divestiture idea - he divested himself of all that became the physical universe, but like parents who create offspring - something separate - a part of them remains a part of the offspring. As such, part of God (the Holy Spirit, perhaps) permeates Utterly Everything and gives rise to the idea that God is everywhere. God is certainly not everything, as David mistakenly believes. For as soon as you make God everything, the Islamic God who stands outside of space, time and therefore causality ceases to exist, and then you must make the Everything both Infinite and timeless, ie, eternal. Since this is clearly at odds with empirical evidence and scientific observation and reasoning, it is faith-based.

DQ wrote:What about thoughts about Allah?

I have asked you more or less this same question and you have yet to reply. Are thoughts in fact things? If they are included in Utterly Everything, then they must be subject to cause and effect. Thus every one would have to be a cause and effect. In other words, you cannot have a thought that was not caused. Moreover, every single thought you have must have an effect on something, not necessarily another thought, for that would be a baseless assumption. David, your notion of causality is faulty at the core - you miss the essence of things by eternally returning to cause and effect as if running for cover.

All logic, when extended far enough, seems to have a navel. David, your logic obviously has one, which you have often admitted - you have certainly contemplated your navel. Yours is that a thing can be said to exist because it is in relation to something else, or A=A. But Utterly Everything is the navel in the sense that logic breaks down when trying to use the same definition of existence: again, the Totality neither exists nor does not exist.

How do you know logic does not break down everywhere in Reality? What if the world were rife with uncaused causes, most of which go unnoticed because they have an ensuing effect, which then becomes cause for another effect, which vanishes without causing anything further. Some uncaused causes take root as it were and lead to endless causal chains, which other die out without a trace, such as virtual particles in a bubble chamber that appear out of nowhere and vanish instantly. If you could accept this, then a First Cause is no longer an impossibility - it is but another uncaused cause, albeit the first one. Hell, you could call it a quantum fluctuation, and never have to think of Deity again. But by the same token, you could never again rule Deity out because a First Cause is rationally unacceptable.

Last edited by cousinbasil on Fri Apr 27, 2012 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

bluerap wrote:The Islam religion, and all other religions, over the centuries have deeply embedded in the brains of the youth an automatic association to finite characteristics when the subject of God is brought up.

I think you are being too harsh here. While I do not align my self with any organized religion, for any number of reasons, I think most religions encourage people - youth included - to think about God. This isn't in itself a bad thing. But then the religion often tells you what to think and how to think. This is bad. No matter - the truth is that any thinking which is done would almost have to be in finite terms due to the limitations of the thinkers, especially the youth.